Kansas City v. Markham, No. 33030.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtHays
Citation99 S.W.2d 28
PartiesKANSAS CITY, a Municipal Corporation, v. MELL R. MARKHAM, ISHMAEL S. O'DELL and BRYAN HERRING, Doing Business as KANSAS CITY TRADING COMPANY, Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 33030.
Decision Date12 November 1936
99 S.W.2d 28
KANSAS CITY, a Municipal Corporation,
v.
MELL R. MARKHAM, ISHMAEL S. O'DELL and BRYAN HERRING, Doing Business as KANSAS CITY TRADING COMPANY, Appellants.
No. 33030.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division One, November 12, 1936.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.Hon. Brown Harris, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Julius C. Shapiro and Maurice J. O'Sullivan for appellants; J. Francis O'Sullivan of counsel.

(1) The order appointing Sheriff Smedley receiver without notice, and directing him to seize defendants' books, records and papers, and the refusal of the circuit court to vacate same, constituted an unlawful search and seizure and violated the constitutional rights and immunities of defendants, preserved to them under Sections 11 and 23, Article II, of the Missouri Constitution and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334 Mo. 713, 67 S.W. (2d) 981; Mo. Const., Secs. 11, 23, Art. II; U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amend.; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 S.W. 1038; State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398, 120 S.W. 53; State v. Lehman, 175 Mo. 619, 75 S.W. 139; State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96; State ex rel. v. Kearns, 304 Mo. 685, 264 S.W. 775; State v. Pearson, 270 S.W. 347; State ex rel. v. Beck, 85 S.W. (2d) 1026; State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348, 259 S.W. 101; State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400, 259 S.W. 124; State v. Davis, 108 Mo. 666, 18 S.W. 894; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L. Ed. 746; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 50 L. Ed. 652; State v. Simmons Hardware Co., 109 Mo. 118, 18 S.W. 1126; United States v. Am. Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, 55 L. Ed. 663; Ex parte Brown, 72 Mo. 94; State ex rel. v. Haid, 325 Mo. 1137, 30 S.W. (2d) 468; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542, 163 S.W. 865; State ex rel. v. Woods, 316 Mo. 1032, 292 S.W. 1033; State ex rel. v. Terte, 324 Mo. 925, 25 S.W. (2d) 462. (2) The order of the circuit court made without notice, appointing a receiver and directing him to take possession of appellants' business and all papers, books, records and other property of whatever kind in Jackson County, Missouri, deprived appellants of their property and effects without due process of law and denied them equal protection of law, in direct violation of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and in direct violation of Section 30, Article II, of the Constitution of Missouri. Sherill v. Brantley, 334 Mo. 497, 66 S.W. (2d) 529; Mo. Const., Secs. 4, 30, Art. II; U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amend.; State ex rel. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S.W. 104; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375, 55 S.W. 632; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L. Ed. 746; State v. McCray, 48 N.D. 625, 186 N.W. 280; Noxon Chemical Products Co. v. Leckie, 39 Fed. (2d) 320; Nottebaum v. Leckie, 31 Fed. (2d) 559. (3) The circuit court did not have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver with or without notice where the petition showed on its face plaintiff had no interest in, claim to or right or lien against the property of appellants. The appointment; the failure to vacate the order; and continuing the receiver in charge was an abuse of and in excess of power. State ex rel. v. Mulloy, 329 Mo. 1, 43 S.W. (2d) 810; Nottebaum v. Leckie, 31 Fed. (2d) 556. (4) The petition in the court below did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public nuisance and did not authorize the appointment of a receiver. Sherrill v. Brantley, 334 Mo. 497, 66 S.W. (2d) 529; State ex rel. v. McMahon, 128 Kan. 772; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 518; State ex rel. v. Barron, 136 Kan. 324, 15 Pac. (2d) 456; State ex rel. v. Iola Theatre Corp., 136 Kan. 411, 15 Pac. (2d) 459; 32 C.J. 275; 9 A.L.R. 925; State ex rel. v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439, 105 S.W. 1078; Laymaster v. Goodin, 260 Mo. 613, 168 S.W. 754; State ex rel. v. Kirkwood Leisure Hours' Social & Pastime Club, 187 S.W. 820; State ex rel. v. Jones, 277 Mo. 71, 209 S.W. 876; State ex rel. v. Salley, 215 S.W. 243; State ex rel. v. Iden, 221 S.W. 782; State ex rel. v. Schweickardt, 109 Mo. 496, 19 S.W. 47; State ex rel. v. Woolfolk, 269 Mo. 389, 190 S.W. 877; Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City, 240 Mo. 659, 144 S.W. 1099; Coast Finance Co. v. Powers, 105 Ore. 339, 209 Pac. 614, 24 A.L.R. 855; Rodijkeit v. Andrews, 74 Ohio St. 123, 77 N.E. 747; Owens v. State. 53 Tex. Crim. App. 108, 112 S.W. 1075; Jackson v. State, 5 Ga. App. 177, 62 S.E. 726; State ex rel. v. Boatmen's Bank, 48 Mo. 189; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich, 218 Mo. App. 68, 262 S.W. 425; Allen v. Newton, 219 Mo. App. 74, 266 S.W. 329.

George Kingsley and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for respondents.

(1) The petition filed by Kansas City stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and alleged facts sufficient to constitute a public nuisance. (a) As to illegality of appellants' business. Secs. 5559, 5561, R.S. 1929; Sherrill v. Brantly, 334 Mo. 497, 66 S.W. (2d) 529; Laws 1911, p. 143; R.S. 1929, sec. 2969. (b) The nuisance ordinance of Kansas City could not embrace appellants' business when such business was not a nuisance under the common law or made so by statute. St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 999; St. Louis v. Heitzeberg Packing & Provision Co., 141 Mo. 375, 42 S.W. 955; City of Sturgeon v. Wab. Ry. Co., 223 Mo. App. 633, 17 S.W. (2d) 618; Commonwealth v. Phoenix Amusement Co., 241 Ky. 678, 44 S.W. (2d) 831. (c) The court erred in appointing a receiver because on the facts alleged in the petition no cause of action in equity was stated against the appellants and the court was without jurisdiction to appoint the receiver. Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 574; Salem Trust Co. v. Mfg. Finance Co., 264 U.S. 197, 68 L. Ed. 628; Struthers v. Drexel, 122 U.S. 495, 30 L. Ed. 1216; Atlanta Joint Terminals v. Walton Discount Co., 29 Ga. App. 225, 114 S.E. 908; King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S.E. 1093; Spicer v. King Bros., 136 Tenn. 413, 189 S.W. 865; Secs. 2630, 2839, 2840, 2844, 4421, 5556, 5559, 5562, R.S. 1929; Scott v. Lloyd, 34 U.S. 417; Bell v. Mulholland, 90 Mo. App. 612; Tolman v. Union C. & S. Co., 80 Mo. App. 274; Fidelity L. & G. Co. v. Baker, 54 Mo. App. 84; Tennessee Finance Co. v. Thompson, 278 Fed. 597; White v. State, 143 Tenn. 222, 226 S.W. 542; Foyer v. Edwards, 1 Sowper, 112; Houghton v. Burden, 228 U.S. 161; McWhite v. State, 143 Tenn. 332, 226 S.W. 222; Home Bond Co. v. McChesney, 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 573; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney, 130 Mo. App. 95; Secs. 6732, 6733, Shannon's Code of Tenn.; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Tolman v. Union Cas. Co., 90 Mo. App. 279; Henderson v. Tolman, 130 Mo. App. 500; Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 169 Mo. 38, 68 S.W. 917; Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 410; Loomis v. Robinson, 73 Mo. 491; Bland v. Robinson, 148 Mo. App. 169; Beardslee v. Morgner, 73 Mo. 22; Pettit v. Ins. Co., 69 Mo. App. 320; Morrison v. DeDonate, 76 Mo. App. 643; Gordon v. Jefferson City, 111 Mo. App. 28; Swift & Co. v. Railroad Co., 149 Mo. App. 533. (d) Appellants' business constitutes a public nuisance. Crawford v. Kansas, 28 Kan. 726; State v. Lindsay, 85 Kan. 79; State v. Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 847; Kentucky State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 281 S.W. 188; State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21, 49 N.E. 809; Columbian Athletic Club v. State, 143 Ind. 98, 40 N.E. 914; Sec. 4347, R.S. 1929; Art. I, Sec. 1, subsecs. 29, 44, 61, Charter of Kansas City; 46 C.J., p. 694, sec. 107, p. 695, sec. 115, p. 697, sec. 130, p. 700, secs. 150, 151, 152, p. 707, sec. 183, p. 718, sec. 241; State ex rel. Crow v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439; State v. Martin, 77 N.J.L. 652, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 507; State ex rel. v. Salley, 215 S.W. 243; State ex rel. v. Iden, 221 S.W. 872; State ex rel. v. Woolfolk, 269 Mo. 389. (e) Kansas City has ample power to institute a suit to enjoin a public nuisance. Art. I, Sec. 1, subsecs. 40, 42, Charter of Kansas City; Art. I, Sec. 6, Charter of Kansas City; Secs. 201-202; City of Sturgeon v. Wab. Ry. Co., 17 S.W. (2d) 616; Sec. 8694, R.S. 1919; Sec. 7207, R.S. 1929; Queen v. Price, L.R. 12, Q.B.D. 256; Pine City v. Munch, 42 Minn. 342; Coast Co. v. Spring Lake, 58 N.J. Eq. 586, 51 L.R.A. 657; American Falls v. West, 26 Idaho, 301, 142 Pac. 42; Village of Kenesaw v. Ry. Co., 91 Neb. 619; Hickory v. Ry. Co., 141 Neb. 716; Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 2 Pac. 187; Lonoke v. Ry. Co., 92 Ark. 546, 123 S.W. 395; Manhattan Mfg. Co. v. Van Kenren, 23 N.J. Eq. 251; Kirkland v. Ferry, 45 Wash. 663, 88 Pac. 1123; City of Walla Walla v. Moore, 2 Wash. Ter. 184, 2 Pac. 187; Cummings v. Lobsitz, 42 Okla. 704, 142 Pac. 993. (f) Equity has power to enjoin a public nuisance even though the act of nuisance is a crime. State ex rel. Crowe v. Canty, 207 Mo. 456; State ex rel. Orr v. Kearns, 264 S.W. 775; State ex rel. v. Woolfolk, 269 Mo. 395; State ex rel. v. Lamb, 337 Mo. 437; Clementine v. State, 14 Mo. 112; People v. St. Louis, 48 Am. Dec. 340; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 672; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 39 U.S. 1092; Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Mylne & C. 141; Stead v. Fortner, 255 Ill. 468, 99 N.E. 680; State ex rel. Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307. (g) Exact precedents exist for the relief sought here. State v. Diamant, 73 N.J.L. 131; State v. Martin, 77 N.J.L. 252; State ex rel. Smith v. Harcourt, 128 Kan. 772, 280 Pac. 906; State ex rel. v. Barron, 136 Kan. 324, 15 Pac. (2d) 456; State ex rel. v. Iola Theatre Corp., 136 Kan. 411, 15 Pac. (2d) 459; Commonwealth v. Donoghue, 63 S.W. (2d) 3, 250 Ky. 343; State v. McMahon, 128 Kan. 772, 280 Pac. 206. (2) The court had authority to appoint a receiver and without notice. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Stead v. Fortner, 255 Ill. 468; State ex rel. v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 314; City of Sturgeon v. Wab. Ry. Co., 17 S.W. (2d) 616. (3) No violation of the due process or equal protection clauses of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • City of St. Louis v. Evans, Nos. 48018-48021
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1960
    ...on Searches and Seizures); State ex rel. Schlueter Mfg. Co. v. Beck, 337 Mo. 839, 85 S.W.2d 1026; Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28; State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Sartorius, 351 Mo. 111, 171 S.W.2d No attempt has been made to apply any authority cited to the spe......
  • Chapin v. Stuckey, No. 85-15
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • July 1, 1985
    ...cites us to Golden Valley Land and Cattle Co. v. Johnstone, 21 N.D. 101, 128 N.W. 691 (1910); Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28 (1936); Silberstein v. H.A. Circus Operating Corporation, 129 S.W.2d 1085 (C.A.Mo.1939), and Fleet v. Hooker, 178 Okl. 640, 63 P.2d 988 (1937), hol......
  • Riegel v. Jungerman, WD 82279
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 24, 2019
    ...v. Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Govts. , 282 S.W.3d 850, 859 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (quoting Kansas City v. Markham , 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Mo. 1936) ). Although not fully developed in Jungerman’s briefing, at argument his counsel argued that this requirement of a right or tit......
  • Camden County ex rel. Camden County Com'n v. Lake of Ozarks Council of Local Governments, No. SD 29045.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 2009
    ...the proceeding, and the court is without power to appoint a receiver at any stage of the controversy. Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28, 30 "Absent threatened destruction or dissipation of the property, or where there is no good cause to believe that benefit would result fro......
4 cases
  • City of St. Louis v. Evans, Nos. 48018-48021
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1960
    ...on Searches and Seizures); State ex rel. Schlueter Mfg. Co. v. Beck, 337 Mo. 839, 85 S.W.2d 1026; Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28; State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Sartorius, 351 Mo. 111, 171 S.W.2d No attempt has been made to apply any authority cited to the spe......
  • Chapin v. Stuckey, No. 85-15
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • July 1, 1985
    ...cites us to Golden Valley Land and Cattle Co. v. Johnstone, 21 N.D. 101, 128 N.W. 691 (1910); Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28 (1936); Silberstein v. H.A. Circus Operating Corporation, 129 S.W.2d 1085 (C.A.Mo.1939), and Fleet v. Hooker, 178 Okl. 640, 63 P.2d 988 (1937), hol......
  • Riegel v. Jungerman, WD 82279
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 24, 2019
    ...v. Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Govts. , 282 S.W.3d 850, 859 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (quoting Kansas City v. Markham , 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Mo. 1936) ). Although not fully developed in Jungerman’s briefing, at argument his counsel argued that this requirement of a right or tit......
  • Camden County ex rel. Camden County Com'n v. Lake of Ozarks Council of Local Governments, No. SD 29045.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 2009
    ...the proceeding, and the court is without power to appoint a receiver at any stage of the controversy. Kansas City v. Markham, 339 Mo. 753, 99 S.W.2d 28, 30 "Absent threatened destruction or dissipation of the property, or where there is no good cause to believe that benefit would result fro......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT